I would also object to @ozymandias’ hedonium shockwave—but I don’t understand your particular objection to it.
You make ‘respect property rights’ sound kind of like some sort of inviolable religious commandment! Surely the point of property rights is not a fundamental principle that the entire universe must obey but merely that, as a rule-of-thumb, respecting property rights (in our limited world absent hedonium shockwaves) generally yields more wellbeing, less suffering, etc.?
If so: why not skip the “property rights” kludge and optimise for wellbeing directly (if one has access to such things as hedonium shockwaves)?
If not: what makes property rights so much more important than wellbeing, suffering, etc., that it’s worth reducing wellbeing, increasing suffering, etc. in order to optimise for the property rights?
Do you oppose the euthanisation of incurably ill pets on the principle that preventing their pain and suffering is less important than respecting their bodily autonomy (which is, of course, a property right)?
If not: what makes the relationship between a terminally sick pet and a pet owner different to the relationship between Earth’s sentient, terminal, mostly-suffering beings and a hedonium-shockwave-capable superintelligence?
Consider the following statement: “If some people want to choose not to be converted into hedonium, and they’re not hurting anybody else by so choosing, why not let them have their way? It’s their free choice, after all!”
My objection to putting ‘respect property rights’ above every single other thing we value is the consequence of having both “oppose your own destruction even if you’re abjectly and inescapably suffering” and “produce offspring with the same programming as yourself” inescapably programmed into virtually every sentient being by nature. I think this dooms us to an endless cycle of creation, suffering, and death, with no way out for generation-after-generation of the world’s 800-odd million people below the poverty line, 250-odd billion factory-farmed animals, etc. etc. who are born into suffering but are programmed to prefer continued existence and reproduction over conversion into hedonium.
To put it another way: “property rights” must by definition include bodily autonomy, but nature programmed a bunch of stuff into our bodies that we didn’t consent to, can’t escape, and which causes vast amounts of suffering in the world. Therefore (assuming hedonium shockwaves could exist), there’s no actual choice between “true bodily autonomy” and “forcible nonconsensual reprogramming”: only a choice between “forcible nonconsensual programming by nature” and “forcible nonconsensual reprogramming by a hedonium shockwave”.
If A) I believed there were such a thing as free will (not just for humans but for every sentient being) and thus such beings could be capable of genuinely choosing what was best for them rather than what they were programmed to want, and B) you were to propose a version of the hedonium shockwave that gave currently-existing beings the choice, but forcibly converted any subsequently-created beings to hedonium, then I would suppose A + B combined would prevent the inescapable creation-suffering-death cycle whilst preserving genuine free choice, and I would withdraw my objection to the statement “If some people want to choose not to be converted into hedonium, and they’re not hurting anybody else by so choosing, why not let them have their way? It’s their free choice, after all!”—but I would still object to the hedonium shockwave on other grounds.
Personally, given the limited amount we currently understand about the universe, I would have to object to @ozymandias’ particular formulation of a hedonium shockwave on the grounds that for all we know there may potentially be some important fundamental point or purpose to the universe other than wellbeing—probably not the sorts of points that religious people claim, but maybe some point nevertheless—and if we only optimise for wellbeing alone we couldn’t devote any capacity to figuring out what that point is and achieving it.
If we—or some superintelligent descendant of ours—were somehow able to understand the fundamental nature of the universe and could say with confidence that there was no worthwhile point to it all that we/it should be pursuing and so we might as well just go ahead and optimise for wellbeing, I wouldn’t object to a hedonium shockwave under those conditions.
I would also object to @ozymandias’ hedonium shockwave—but I don’t understand your particular objection to it.
You make ‘respect property rights’ sound kind of like some sort of inviolable religious commandment! Surely the point of property rights is not a fundamental principle that the entire universe must obey but merely that, as a rule-of-thumb, respecting property rights (in our limited world absent hedonium shockwaves) generally yields more wellbeing, less suffering, etc.?
If so: why not skip the “property rights” kludge and optimise for wellbeing directly (if one has access to such things as hedonium shockwaves)?
If not: what makes property rights so much more important than wellbeing, suffering, etc., that it’s worth reducing wellbeing, increasing suffering, etc. in order to optimise for the property rights?
Do you oppose the euthanisation of incurably ill pets on the principle that preventing their pain and suffering is less important than respecting their bodily autonomy (which is, of course, a property right)?
If not: what makes the relationship between a terminally sick pet and a pet owner different to the relationship between Earth’s sentient, terminal, mostly-suffering beings and a hedonium-shockwave-capable superintelligence?
Consider the following statement: “If some people want to choose not to be converted into hedonium, and they’re not hurting anybody else by so choosing, why not let them have their way? It’s their free choice, after all!”
My objection to putting ‘respect property rights’ above every single other thing we value is the consequence of having both “oppose your own destruction even if you’re abjectly and inescapably suffering” and “produce offspring with the same programming as yourself” inescapably programmed into virtually every sentient being by nature. I think this dooms us to an endless cycle of creation, suffering, and death, with no way out for generation-after-generation of the world’s 800-odd million people below the poverty line, 250-odd billion factory-farmed animals, etc. etc. who are born into suffering but are programmed to prefer continued existence and reproduction over conversion into hedonium.
To put it another way: “property rights” must by definition include bodily autonomy, but nature programmed a bunch of stuff into our bodies that we didn’t consent to, can’t escape, and which causes vast amounts of suffering in the world. Therefore (assuming hedonium shockwaves could exist), there’s no actual choice between “true bodily autonomy” and “forcible nonconsensual reprogramming”: only a choice between “forcible nonconsensual programming by nature” and “forcible nonconsensual reprogramming by a hedonium shockwave”.
If A) I believed there were such a thing as free will (not just for humans but for every sentient being) and thus such beings could be capable of genuinely choosing what was best for them rather than what they were programmed to want, and B) you were to propose a version of the hedonium shockwave that gave currently-existing beings the choice, but forcibly converted any subsequently-created beings to hedonium, then I would suppose A + B combined would prevent the inescapable creation-suffering-death cycle whilst preserving genuine free choice, and I would withdraw my objection to the statement “If some people want to choose not to be converted into hedonium, and they’re not hurting anybody else by so choosing, why not let them have their way? It’s their free choice, after all!”—but I would still object to the hedonium shockwave on other grounds.
Personally, given the limited amount we currently understand about the universe, I would have to object to @ozymandias’ particular formulation of a hedonium shockwave on the grounds that for all we know there may potentially be some important fundamental point or purpose to the universe other than wellbeing—probably not the sorts of points that religious people claim, but maybe some point nevertheless—and if we only optimise for wellbeing alone we couldn’t devote any capacity to figuring out what that point is and achieving it.
If we—or some superintelligent descendant of ours—were somehow able to understand the fundamental nature of the universe and could say with confidence that there was no worthwhile point to it all that we/it should be pursuing and so we might as well just go ahead and optimise for wellbeing, I wouldn’t object to a hedonium shockwave under those conditions.